|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 4, 2018 15:22:11 GMT -5
PBL All-Time Player Rankings, 41-60
#60 (#21 SP) Jenrry Mejia, 2011-2031, WASHall Rating 37.0, 3 All-Stars, 23.9% HoF Voting so far 3700 IP, 87 FIP-, 0.9 / 2.5 / 8.0, 7 WAR x 1, 5 WAR x 4, 4 WAR x 3, 3 WAR x 6 It's not a surprise that Mejia isn't getting much love from Hall voters, even though his Hall Rating is pretty strong. Aside from his age 25 season he was never a great pitcher, only finishing in the top 10 of WAR three times. What he does bring to the table is having been a very good pitcher for a very long amount of time. We may only be looking at 1 great season, but we have eight excellent seasons, and fourteen seasons all above 3 WAR. That's a level of consistent quality that not many so far on the list can match. He's similar to Martin Perez but with fewer innings and higher quality. #59 (#10 C) Manny Cabrera, 2027 – present (41 years old), PITHall Rating 37.0, 1 Gold Glove, 1 All-Star, 1 Ring 9453 PA, 116 OPS+, 270 / 364 / 405, 6 WAR x 1, 5 WAR x 6, 4 WAR x 4, 3 WAR x 3 Cabrera has such an excellent streak of quality performance. No huge seasons but eleven seasons above 4 WAR is pretty remarkable, and seven seasons above 5 WAR even more so. Cabrera's biggest problem is his competition. If you haven't noticed, catcher is probably the strongest position in the PBL. If Cabrera is the #10 catcher left that means that one in every six of the top 60 players is a catcher. It says a lot that Manny Cabrera had seven 5+ WAR years and made the all-star team . . . once. He's a great player but compared to the others at his position he's always come off a little short.#58 (#9 C) Robert Benson, 2024-2040, TEX, Hall of Fame 2044Hall Rating 37.6, 1 Silver Slugger, 5 All-Stars, 1 Ring 8315 PA, 133 OPS+, 289 / 319 / 528, 7 WAR x 1, 6 WAR x 3, 5 WAR x 2, 4 WAR x 5 Robert Benson you are my freaking nemesis. I've already written a bit about him so I'll try and restrain myself. He had better peak seasons than Cabrera but had fewer good seasons. And it's pretty clear to me that if you could only have one of them for his career you'd have been better off with Cabrera; more good seasons is a win. But Benson has those sexy power numbers and those count for a lot with voting. #57 (#20 SP) Keyvius Sampson, 2012-2029, SEAHall Rating 37.9, 2 All-Stars 3322 IP, 84 FIP-, 1.1 / 2.8 / 10.2, 6 WAR x 2, 5 WAR x 3, 4 WAR x 5, 3 WAR x 4 Even higher K/9 than Phil Jackson. Really strong pitcher for a long time, fourteen 3+ WAR years, ten 4+ WAR years and five 5+ WAR years. Somehow he was always overshadowed by his rivals (only two all-stars for this level of performance is surprising) but he led the league in K/9 six times, which counts for something. He's already fallen off the ballot which is a shame. He was great in his time. #56 (#8 1B) Kwan-cheol Nang, 2026-2043, CARHall Rating 38.3, 1 MVP, 1 Silver Slugger, 6 Gold Gloves, 4 All-Stars, not yet voted on 10278 PA, 128 OPS+, 275 / 335 / 478, 7 WAR x 2, 5 WAR x 4, 4 WAR x 4, 3 WAR x 2 What an interesting player. He's the worst hitter among first basemen on this list but his glove has been worth 92.6 ZR over his career. He's honestly like a duplicate of Keith Hernandez, except not quite as good with a glove but with a much longer career. With ten seasons over 4 WAR (and two above 7) he had a strong career. Yeah, sure, his candidacy would be enhanced if his glove had been sub-par but he'd hit an extra 50 home runs to get above 500, but nobody's perfect (even if the two have a similar run value). #55 (#4 RF) Jorge Garcia, 2024-2043, KCHall Rating 38.7, 3 Silver Sluggers, 1 Gold Glove, 7 All-Stars, not yet voted on 10315 PA, 133 OPS+, 288 / 347 / 497, 7 WAR x 1, 6 WAR x 2, 5 WAR x 2, 4 WAR x 4, 3 WAR x 6 Garcia has a pretty strong resume. By Hall Rating he's the #4 right fielder in PBL history and his seven All-Stars in 18 years suggest that he was consistently one of the best at his position during his career. As far as real-life comps he's got a JAWS similar to Tony Gwynn (who's in) but doesn't have Gwynn's distinctiveness. 10K PA is pretty normal but 133 OPS+ is slightly low for a HoF rightfielder; among the top 13 only Roberto Clemente has a lower number (but was an obviously better fielder). Garcia has a high peak but also a depth of quality seasons. It's going to be a crowded ballot coming up but Garcia merits discussion. #54 (#3 RF) Giancarlo Stanton, 2010-2029, MIAHall Rating 39.5, 2 Gold Gloves, 8 All-Stars 10166 PA, 126 OPS+, 264 / 367 / 467, 7 WAR x 1, 6 WAR x 3, 5 WAR x 3, 4 WAR x 3, 3 WAR x 1 #53 (#19 SP) Warren Smith, 2028-2044, PHIHall Rating 39.7, 1 Gold Glove, 2 All-Stars, not yet voted on 3409 IP, 85 FIP-, 0.6 / 2.0 / 6.4, 6 WAR x 3, 5 WAR x 2, 4 WAR x 6, 3 WAR x 2 Speaking of a loaded docket, Warren 'No Moon' Smith is going to be on there as well. He's got the same general IP as Sampson and a slightly worse FIP- but a higher concentration of great seasons. Eleven seasons above 4 WAR is pretty swank. Smith was a serious control pitcher, allowing an incredibly low number of home runs (no pitcher who has pitched more than him has allowed less; the first pitcher on the IP list to allow fewer HR is Zach Porter who has pitched 400 fewer innings. Smith has a hall rating of almost 40, which generally means that the player is hall-worthy. I'm concerned that his career isn't dramatic enough (suggested by his low number of All-Stars) for attention. But let me tell you a funny story about him. When he was 39 he was signed to a 2-year 28 million dollar deal by Washington, coming off a 4.5 WAR year where he pitched 0.7 / 1.9 / 5.1. Now, you may ask, how smart is it to hand $14 million a year over to a 39 year-old pitcher who could barely stay above 5 K/9? You'd be right to be suspicious. Smith's K/9 dropped to 3.7 at age 39, and even further to 3.4 at age 40. What a dumb move right? Would you believe he threw up 4.7 and 2.3 WAR those two years? When you allow only 0.6 HR/9 and only 2 BB/9, even a pitcher that can't strike out 4 per 9 has value. Not many pitchers historically could have pulled that off. #52 (#7 1B) Todd Helton, 1997-2013, COL, Hall of Fame 2024Hall Rating 40.0, 3 Gold Gloves, 5 All-Stars 10214 PA, 146 OPS+, 318 / 419 / 535, 7 WAR x 4, 5 WAR x 1, 4 WAR x 5, 3 WAR x 2 #51 (#6 1B) Jeff Bunyan, 2024-2044, WASHall Rating 40.1, 1 MVP, Rookie of the Year, 6 All-Stars, 2 Rings, not yet voted on 13607 PA, 143 OPS+, 319 / 390 / 492, 5 WAR x 5, 4 WAR x 5, 3 WAR x 6 Bunyan is kind of the anti-Helton. Both great hitters, Bunyan played a lot longer but with much less of a peak. No seasons above 6 WAR (his MVP season in 2028 was weirdly for a 4.9 WAR year) but he had sixteen seasons all above 3 WAR, ten of those above 4 WAR. Jeff Bunyan was like a metronome, reliable for 4 WAR every year and a ton of hits. He actually has the highest batting average of any player that started after 2011 and has the 5th most hits. His OPS+ is a little low for the Hall at first base, but he has a mountain of PA. JAWS thinks he's a lock (because JAWS likes career length more than Hall Rating). But even Hall Rating sees him as the 6th best first basemen of PBL history and comparable to Todd Helton who is in the Hall. I confess to being a little biased toward Bunyan because he played for me, but his volume of good seasons is pretty impressive. Did I mention that the upcoming ballot will be loaded? #50 (#18 SP) Ray 'Ice Cream' Barry, 2034-present (33 years old), PITHall Rating 40.6, 1 Cy Young, 6 All-Stars, 3 Rings 2363 IP, 76 FIP-, 0.7 / 2.9 / 9.4, 7 WAR x 3, 6 WAR x 1, 5 WAR x 6 Wowwee. He's already #50 on this list, #18 among SP's, already has a Hall Rating probably good enough for admission and is only 33? Pencil this guy in right now. Barry remains durable and though his control has started to erode just a bit, he seems reliable for at least another five seasons at a very high level. Just five more 5-WAR seasons would make him the 6th best PBL pitcher ever; I think he has a good shot at making the top 5. Ray Barry has an interesting history. He was drafted out of high school by the Twins with the #1 overall pick in the 2030 draft. At age 22 he debuted in the majors with little success (his 6.2 BB/9 may have had something to do with it). But that, as they say, is when Pittsburgh happened. Queue the blockbuster:
Minnesota gave Ray Barry and 3B Fletcher Strelioff (garbage) for:
SP Andrew Everett (27, 8/7/6 coming off two 4 WAR seasons), RP Sherman Robinson (23, 5/6/4, pot. 6/7/8), RP Haden Mosley (21, 5/5/2, pot. 9/6/5), Cal McKames (garbage), and a first rounder (end of the first round of course, but still).
Now you may be thinking “that Shane, doing his infamous 'trade the middling talent starting to cost money plus irrelevant pieces for the future superstar.'” Here's what you're missing. At the time of this trade Ray Barry was (9/7/4, pot. 10/7/7) at age 23. Look at Andrew Everett again. He's not great (the kind of player Pittsburgh invariably isn't satisfied with) but an 8/7/6 4 WAR player still in his arbitration has a decent amount of value. But Barry only had 4 control at age 23. I don't know about you but that scares the poop out of me. The numbers I've crunched suggest that players at 9/7/4 at 23 only hit 6 control 30-50% of the time. And a 9/7/5 SP is decent but not that great. So let me rephrase this trade: Pittsburgh trades a 4-WAR arbitration SP, two decent relief prospects and a first-rounder for a prospect with sky-high potential but high bust probability. This was an incredibly ballsy trade; if I were Minnesota and I'd received that offer I'd have taken it and thought “Man, I can't believe I took advantage of Pittsburgh like that. I got to sell high by unloading my sexy high-bust prospect for a present upgrade and a first rounder.”
But, of course, that's not how it worked out. Everett had a modest career, the relievers developed well (especially Mosley), the first-rounder whiffed and Ray Barry is going to be in the Hall of Fame. The trade ended up being an incredible coup. But looking at where Barry's ratings were at the time of the trade it's scary to think how easily it could have gone the other way. #49 (#5 1B) Jim Thome, 1991-2011, CLEHall Rating 40.6, 5 All-Stars 9988 PA, 147 OPS+, 275 / 401 / 549, 7 WAR x 1, 6 WAR x 1, 5 WAR x 4, 4 WAR x 5, 3 WAR x 2 #48 (#17 SP) Brandon Webb, 2003-2018, COLHall Rating 40.7, 1 Cy Young, 7 All-Stars 2844 IP, 80 FIP-, 0.5 / 3.1 / 6.4, 7 WAR x 1, 6 WAR x 3, 5 WAR x 4, 4 WAR x 1, 3 WAR x 4 #47 (#6 3B) Pablo Sandoval, 2008-2026, BAL, Hall of Fame 2034Hall Rating 40.9, 2 MVPs, 5 All-Stars, 10747 PA, 131 OPS+, 311 / 362 / 496 9 WAR x 1, 8 WAR x 1, 6 WAR x 1, 5 WAR x 2, 4 WAR x 4, 3 WAR x 4 Sandoval had a great career. In terms of real life counterparts he pretty much hit comparably to Wade Boggs for a similar length. Boggs was a better fielder (by about 30 runs) and played at 3rd his entire career where Sandoval jumped to first at age 29, so Sandoval isn't as good, but Boggs was one of the top 5 real 3B ever.#46 (#5 3B) Stanton 'Jaws' Jimenez, 2028-present (39 years old), PITHall Rating 41.9, 1 Silver Slugger, 8 All-Stars, 3 Rings 10461 PA, 117 OPS+, 294 / 390 / 365, 7 WAR x 2, 6 WAR x 2, 5 WAR x 4, 4 WAR x 4 Stanton Jimenez is an oddity; the only PBL future or present Hall-of-Famer whose OBP is higher than their SLG. In over ten thousand PA he's hit . . . 48 home runs. In order to pull off a Hall of Fame career when you need two hundred plate appearences for every home run you need to have: high batting average, high walks and good fielding at a fielding position. Jimenez checks every box. He's got a strong resume with lots of All-Stars, four nice peak seasons and boasts twelve different seasons all above four WAR. He is already the fifth best of a loaded group of third basemen; I feel like he's a Hall of Famer. #45 (#2 SS) Derek Jeter, 1995-2014, NYY, Hall of Fame 2020Hall Rating 42.3, Rookie of the Year, 3 Gold Gloves, 11 All-Stars 12198 PA, 117 OPS+, 312 / 381 / 452, 7 WAR x 1, 6 WAR x 2, 5 WAR x 4, 4 WAR x 3, 3 WAR x 4 #44 (#16 SP) Zach Greinke, 2004-2022, KCHall Rating 43.3, 1 Cy Young, 1 Gold Glove, 3 All-Stars, 4751 IP, 92 FIP-, 1.1 / 2.4 / 7.5 8 WAR x 1, 7 WAR x 1, 6 WAR x 2, 5 WAR x 2, 4 WAR x 3, 3 WAR x 6 #43 (#2 RF) Marvin 'The Memib' Webb, 2010-2027, TB, Hall of Fame 2034Hall Rating 43.3, Rookie of the Year, 2 Gold Gloves, 12 All-Stars 11036 PA, 133 OPS+, 312 / 386 / 470, 6 WAR x 2, 5 WAR x 5, 4 WAR x 4, 3 WAR x 3 Wowza. 12 All-Stars and an excellent fielder. In fact, his fielding is a little funny; in the corners he was worth 114.4 runs in the field. But in center he cost his team 51.4 runs. It's interesting how some positions, like catcher and 3B are so loaded when Webb, who's fine but nothing crazy, is the #2 RF in PBL history. Webb is a great-fielding corner outfielder, carried by his batting average. When it disappeared at age 39 his career was over. Debating his merits for the Hall is a little late, since he made it in eleven seasons ago. #42 (#6 LF) Manny Ramirez, 1993-2012, BOSHall Rating 43.6, 12 All-Stars 10188 PA, 156 OPS+, 309 / 409 / 583, 6 WAR x 4, 5 WAR x 7, 4 WAR x 2 How did Manny not make the Hall!? Eleven 5+ WAR seasons? Do you know how many LF in MLB history have had an OPS+ higher than 156? Two. Barry Bonds and Ted Williams. Could he field? Hell no. Did he cost his team almost 13 wins over the course of his career by being an indifferent fielder? Hell yes. He's the 20th best pure hitter (by OPS+) in MLB history, and everyone above him either is in the Hall, is wrapped up in the juicing scandal, or played too few seasons. In PBL history only five batters have put up 5k PA and a higher OPS+. Pujols, Terrence Henderson, Roberto Vasti, Sotan Kono and Guy Richmond. Four of those are first-ballot Hall of Famers and one is a great hitter sabatoged by being a much, much worse fielder than Manny. Much worse. It's too late now. But I think Manny should be in the Hall. #41 (#1 SS) Troy Tulowitzki, 2006-2022, COLHall Rating 43.6, 3 Gold Gloves, 8 All-Stars, 10237 PA, 116 OPS+, 277 / 359 / 461 9 WAR x 1, 7 WAR x 2, 6 WAR x 1, 5 WAR x 4, 4 WAR x 3, 3 WAR x 1
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 5, 2018 23:10:48 GMT -5
One of the best examples for why wins don't matter is Felix Hernandez in his prime with the Mariners. Lead the league in ERA, strikeouts and neap tops for innings. But because his team wasn't that great he was 15-13 and didn't get the CY Young. I just think of those Yankee teams with Andy Pettit having a mid 4 ERA but has a 19-9 or 21-8. How many games have you seen a pitcher go 7 or 8 innings and allow ONE run and lose 1-0. Does that mean he couldn't grit it out? Or does it mean he pitched awesome but his team didn't hit? Look at Aaron Sele. Benefitted from being on good offensive teams 18-9, with a 4.79 ERA. was he pitching well? Or was he a mediocre pitcher who's offense overcame his starts? Who hasn't seen the game where the guy goes 6 innings allows 7 runs but because his team score 11 he got the win. Wins are largely tied to how much h run support do you get not how well do you pitch. None of the players you mentioned are compiling 300 wins. I looked at Pettitte's stats and I'm not seeing a season close to which you described. Sorry, but just because you gave up 3 runs and got outpitched by someone that gave up 2 doesn't mean both players should get a win. That's the participation trophy mentality. Like I said in my previous post, it's not a tell all stat but to act like it doesn't mean anything is ridiculous. I've come to find that there are two general approaches to understanding baseball: results oriented and probability oriented. In law there is a principle called res ipsa loquitur, which means 'the thing speaks for itself.' Results oriented analysis basically believe that results speak for themselves. Which is better, the single that drives in two or the home run with bases empty? The single; two runs is better than one. Who was the best team in the majors in 2001? The Diamondbacks; they won the World Series. Who was the best pitcher in 1961? Whitey Ford obviously, he went 25-4 and isn't the goal of the game to win? It's hard to argue with it; after all, you're evaluating results based on exactly what happened. When a guy drives in a run you can see it driven in. There's no theory, no faith needed, there's now one more run on the scoreboard. Everyone can understand that. A lot of it comes from watching the games. The more you watch the games the more interrelated everything obviously is. King Felix striking out fourteen and allowing two runs in a losing effort doesn't help your hometown Mariners any. The endgame is wins and you need events to happen in sequence to lead to wins. So it makes sense to evaluate based on those sequences of events happening. Any argument based on individual events without a team/game context is likely to be met with incredulity. How well King Felix pitched is irrelevant; any fan would like an ugly win more than a pretty lost. So the results oriented approach is intuitive, which generally makes it more popular. The probability oriented approach basically considers each event in a complete vacuum. King Felix didn't pitch a loss, he pitched a great game of 14 strikeouts and two runs allowed which is an excellent performance irrespective of the context. That he happened to lose is irrelevant, since he could be on any team in any run support situation and it wouldn't change how well he pitched. The probability approach only cares about the components of performance, never about the team-context results. Which is better, the single that drives in two or the home run with bases empty? Obviously the home run; that more runs were driven in with the single was coincidental. Who was the best team in the majors in 2001? The Seattle Mariners obviously; they won way more games than everyone else during the regular season and had one of the best teams of all-time by any measure. Who was the best pitcher in 1961? Don Cardwell and Jack Kralick both had 6.1 WAR years; Whitey Ford only had a 3.3 WAR year, with insane run support from the Yankees lineup and luck he was able to pull off an insane record. Anyhow, I've made my point on this one. Here's the problem: I'm completely probabilistic. I mean, completely. I couldn't care less about W/L records for pitchers, or even for teams. A team with 100 wins and 30 team WAR is obviously worse than an 80 win team with 50 team WAR. One of them will make the playoffs and one won't but that doesn't have anything to do with how well those teams played. I don't care about ERA. I don't care about RBI or Runs. I try and respect results-oriented attitudes as a matter of philosophy but as far as myself and my team I'm probabilistic all the way. Results-oriented analysis will always have a hard time understanding and respecting probabilistic. And vice versa. But I'm glad we have both in the PBL. It's a good mixing pot for all of us to learn and grow from.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 6, 2018 7:31:11 GMT -5
None of the players you mentioned are compiling 300 wins. I looked at Pettitte's stats and I'm not seeing a season close to which you described. Sorry, but just because you gave up 3 runs and got outpitched by someone that gave up 2 doesn't mean both players should get a win. That's the participation trophy mentality. Like I said in my previous post, it's not a tell all stat but to act like it doesn't mean anything is ridiculous. I've come to find that there are two general approaches to understanding baseball: results oriented and probability oriented. In law there is a principle called res ipsa loquitur, which means 'the thing speaks for itself.' Results oriented analysis basically believe that results speak for themselves. Which is better, the single that drives in two or the home run with bases empty? The single; two runs is better than one. Who was the best team in the majors in 2001? The Diamondbacks; they won the World Series. Who was the best pitcher in 1961? Whitey Ford obviously, he went 25-4 and isn't the goal of the game to win? It's hard to argue with it; after all, you're evaluating results based on exactly what happened. When a guy drives in a run you can see it driven in. There's no theory, no faith needed, there's now one more run on the scoreboard. Everyone can understand that. A lot of it comes from watching the games. The more you watch the games the more interrelated everything obviously is. King Felix striking out fourteen and allowing two runs in a losing effort doesn't help your hometown Mariners any. The endgame is wins and you need events to happen in sequence to lead to wins. So it makes sense to evaluate based on those sequences of events happening. Any argument based on individual events without a team/game context is likely to be met with incredulity. How well King Felix pitched is irrelevant; any fan would like an ugly win more than a pretty lost. So the results oriented approach is intuitive, which generally makes it more popular. The probability oriented approach basically considers each event in a complete vacuum. King Felix didn't pitch a loss, he pitched a great game of 14 strikeouts and two runs allowed which is an excellent performance irrespective of the context. That he happened to lose is irrelevant, since he could be on any team in any run support situation and it wouldn't change how well he pitched. The probability approach only cares about the components of performance, never about the team-context results. Which is better, the single that drives in two or the home run with bases empty? Obviously the home run; that more runs were driven in with the single was coincidental. Who was the best team in the majors in 2001? The Seattle Mariners obviously; they won way more games than everyone else during the regular season and had one of the best teams of all-time by any measure. Who was the best pitcher in 1961? Don Cardwell and Jack Kralick both had 6.1 WAR years; Whitey Ford only had a 3.3 WAR year, with insane run support from the Yankees lineup and luck he was able to pull off an insane record. Anyhow, I've made my point on this one. Here's the problem: I'm completely probabilistic. I mean, completely. I couldn't care less about W/L records for pitchers, or even for teams. A team with 100 wins and 30 team WAR is obviously worse than an 80 win team with 50 team WAR. One of them will make the playoffs and one won't but that doesn't have anything to do with how well those teams played. I don't care about ERA. I don't care about RBI or Runs. I try and respect results-oriented attitudes as a matter of philosophy but as far as myself and my team I'm probabilistic all the way. Results-oriented analysis will always have a hard time understanding and respecting probabilistic. And vice versa. But I'm glad we have both in the PBL. It's a good mixing pot for all of us to learn and grow from. Why do you have to be one or the other? Can't you be both? Nothing is absolute, and to truly understand baseball or heck nearly anything you can't just focus on one approach.
|
|